Jerry Lundström wrote: > If your looking at moving to something other then Protocol Buffer I > would say use CBOR (RFC 7049) and either use a schema or register a tag. > CBOR is more or less a standardized MessagePack and it is equal to > Protocol Buffers.
Hi, Jerry: I think CBOR is the prime candidate if a dnstap v2 were to be developed, but my impression from the DNS-OARC meeting is folks are interested in specifying the existing protocol (dnstap v1), which uses protobufs, because the existing protocol is what implementations are using. > Or maybe the RFC should describe the data structure and not how it is > "packed" or transported? I do think it is worth specifying the dnstap data model and serialization profiles separately. Otherwise the spec wouldn't be much more than a .proto file with comments. The transport protocol that is typically used for dnstap (https://github.com/farsightsec/fstrm is the reference implementation) has nothing in it that's dnstap specific. It could benefit from being formally specified but I don't see why it would need to be specified in the same document as dnstap proper. -- Robert Edmonds _______________________________________________ dnstap mailing list [email protected] http://lists.redbarn.org/mailman/listinfo/dnstap
